"We should speak clearly, forthrightly and call our leaders back to honesty. We should demand the truth, and refuse to be put to sleep. And those 'leaders' who play those games must also be put to shame, and out to pasture."
RC Sproul Jr on "Spin" in Every Thought Captive, Vol. 5, Issue 5

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Our deepest thanks and appreciation go out to Pastor Shaun Nolan for posting this insightful article on his blog. We're reposting it here in its entirety, rather than only posting a link to it, because stuff like this just has a funny way of disappearing. (EDIT: just like we thought would happen Pastor Shaun Nolan made this article disappear -- in fact he took down his entire blog).

What Pastor Shaun has done is to give us a play-by-play preview of the CREC's Saint Peter Commission and the items on their agenda for fulfilling their predetermined role, per Doug Wilson's directive, of exonerating the Saint Peter Four and ordaining them in the CREC. Doug Wilson's "A Justice Primer" blog series has only made that too obvious. Thank you Pastor Shaun for now making it even just that much more obvious. Oh, and we love your catchy title, "Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name." That's the exact title we should have come up with ourselves weeks ago!

At this point the CREC is really going to have to move quickly on that show trial, though. In most cases the phrase "rush to justice" has a real bad connotation, but in this case it doesn't really matter anyway. The only thing that matters is the outcome. After all, RC Sproul Jr does have that Generations Conference on "Honor" coming up real soon (May 5-6). It just wouldn't look right to have a defrocked minister behind a pulpit talking about "honor." Much better to have an exonerated defrocked reordained minister talk about "honor." Well, maybe not. You'd have to be real gullible to believe that getting exonerated by Doug Wilson and his CREC could be a badge of honor. Then again, there are a lot of gullible Christians out there, so maybe it'll work after all!

Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name

It was a great privilege to have lunch with R.C. and Vesta Sproul this afternoon. (Some of you may know that Vesta’s brother is our assistant pastor at View Crest. So, lest you think me important, the occasion had nothing to do with yours truly.) During the course of conversation, we turned to a discussion of the recent allegations against R.C.’s son. At the close of our conversation, I asked R.C. if I could share what he had told me via Postscript Posthaste. He said that would be fine.

Please understand that what I am saying here is by no means “official”. I recognize that many of my readers have a deep respect for both R.C. and R.C. Jr., and I want to ease their consciences about this matter. I also understand that there are those out there who find no greater pleasure than to slander another man’s character. For those in the latter group, you’ll want to stop reading now. I will offer you nothing of flammability and I do not wish my name associated with your diatribes. Even when I initially addressed this issue, my purpose was only to remind all of us of the deep necessity of Biblical accountability and not to issue judgment. Further, anything I say here is technically “hearsay” so it won’t stand up in any court. Nevertheless, I trust R.C. and believe he is telling the truth about his son.

So then, what is going on with R.C. Jr.?

Of late we have heard little about the situation surrounding R.C. Jr’s “defrocking” and this is for good reason. I am told that most, if not all of the charges brought against the session of St. Peters were themselves fraudulent. (I will address some of them below.) In case of point, no trial actually took place before the pronouncement of deposition was issued. This is highly irregular and because of this, the elders of St. Peters have sought to clear their names via examination apart from their former denomination, the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA). As I write, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CRE) is conducting a detailed examination of the charges. What this means is that the trial they did not receive is being conducted by a third party. The results, soon to be released, will then be examined by other groups for the purpose of validating conclusions and clearing the name of the men involved.

The Charge of Tax ID Misuse
The elders of St. Peter’s were charged with using the ARP (Associate Reformed Presbyterian) Tax ID number instead of the RPCGA number. According to R.C. Sr., a consultant had been called in to help St. Peter’s with their finances. That consultant discovered the ARP ID number being used (which was there because the church had formerly been ARP) and informed them they needed to fix that. R.C. Jr. promptly called both the ARP to apologize and the IRS to apologize and initiate changes.

The Charge of Lording It Over the Congregation
The elders of St. Peter’s were charged with not allowing members to leave. I am told the members in question were under discipline of the church and were told they would not be allowed to flee discipline. This is the normal process with members under discipline in Presbyterianism. We don’t want folks running from accountability. That people do leave anyway is beside the point. After they did leave, they complained to the General Assembly and their charge was thus included.

The Charge of Planting a Church and Ordaining a Pastor Without Permission of the Presbytery
What the documentation of the RPCGA fails to note regarding this charge is that a separate presbytery of that same denomination did, in fact, do these things. As I understand it, the church that was planted was not within the bounds of the presbytery which St. Peter’s was in. It was only later that the Moderator of the denomination ruled that church “unofficial”. (Please don’t ask me how a Moderator can do this. My understanding is that this is a very small denomination that places a great deal of power in the hands of its denominational Moderator.)

The Charge of Practicing Paedo-Communion
This simply wasn’t the case. Young children were examined by the elders for the purpose of discerning a credible profession of faith and some were admitted, but no infants were allowed to partake. Even the PCA Book of Church Order says that it is up to the discretion of the elders as to the age at which a child can demonstrate faith. This was the process at St. Peters.

In Conclusion
In conclusion, I must say that I am pleased to hear the “other side” of this story and I sincerely hope that justice is served in the most positive sense. I would love nothing more than for their names to be cleared and their ministries continue unhindered. I am making this information available only to do my part in maintaining balance, easing consciences pricked by what they had heard, and to inform you, my readers, of the upcoming report from the CRE.

I urge you to continue to pray for these men and for the Reformed Church at large that is impacted by events like these. May God be glorified even through this.

We're grateful to Pastor Shaun that he would "inform you, my readers, of the upcoming report from the CRE." We know the report isn't quite finished yet, but since the outcome was predetermined weeks ago, all that's left now is to write the report in support of what was already determined from even before when the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission was convened (CREC Moderator Randy Booth has that underlined because when he underlines something it really means that it's really the truth and that you can really trust him -- really). In our opinion, Pastor Shaun has done an excellent job of providing an outline for the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission's Show-Trial Report.

We're also grateful to Pastor Shaun that he would "remind all of us of the deep necessity of Biblical accountability and not to issue judgment." Funny thing about that is he's issuing his own judgments -- calling the charges "fraudulent" is an extremely serious judgment. Of course, in Pastor Shaun's case he'd claim that he's not issuing a judgment, he's just telling us the truth. The truth is that "most, if not all of the charges brought against the session of St. Peters were themselves fraudulent." Pastor Shaun knows this because Dr. R.C. Sproul told him so. Of course, any pronouncements that Dr. R.C. Sproul would make about his son are entirely objective and must be taken as the gospel truth. However, anyone on the other side of the debate is "issuing judgment," and as we all know "issuing judgment" is bad. It's especially bad that the RPCGA issued judgment. "Touch not the Lord's annointed." Judging--bad. Love--good. "Love covers a multitude of sins," so let's all get busy and get to covering, um, clearing.

We don't really need to spend much time critiquing Dr. R.C. Sproul's analysis of the case, as retold by Pastor Shaun. It's all pretty well summed up in:

"I am told that most, if not all of the charges brought against the session of St. Peters were themselves fraudulent."

We were pretty sure the Sprouls and their true believers were going to use the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" defense. Now it's been confirmed. Alleging now that the charges were "fraudulent" is a real amazing claim, especially since R.C. Sproul Jr confessed to the charges. So what is R.C. Jr going to do now? Claim "temporary insanity" at the time of his confession (or maybe he was just drunk)? If it were true that the charges were fraudulent, that would not only put R.C. Sproul Jr's accusers in the worst possible light, it would also put the RPCGA in the worst possible light for having rendered a judgment based upon alleged "fraudulent" charges. When someone makes an allegation of "fraud" the burden of proof rests squarely on them to prove the "fraud," or in this case the burden rests squarely on the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission Show-Trial. Considering the evidence that the RPCGA has already made public, not to mention all the other things they say that they have in the case file that they have yet to make public, an allegation of "fraud" would be mighty tough to prove.

Pastor Shaun isn't the only one who "would love nothing more than for their names to be cleared and their ministries continue unhindered." Dr. RC Sproul would also love to see his son cleared. No one can blame him for wanting to see his son cleared and reordained, but it's tragic that he can't come up with anything better than just alleging that the charges are "fraudulent." It's also real sad (in fact it's just pathetic) that they can't come up with anything better than Doug Wilson and the CREC to "clear" him with. The pickings must be mighty slim for RC Jr.

"In case of point, no trial actually took place before the pronouncement of deposition was issued. This is highly irregular and because of this, the elders of St. Peters have sought to clear their names via examination apart from their former denomination, the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA)."

"We want to thank you and the brethren of Westminster Presbytery (RPCGA) for your friendship, kindness, and gracious patience shown to this Session over the past four years."

Yes, it sure sounds like they thought they were getting screwed.

"As I write, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CRE) is conducting a detailed examination of the charges. What this means is that the trial they did not receive is being conducted by a third party. The results, soon to be released, will then be examined by other groups for the purpose of validating conclusions and clearing the name of the men involved."

So as we already knew the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission is obviously judicial in nature -- just not judicial in the legitimate sense of the term. Everyone involved in the CREC Commission, and everyone in the know about the goings on of the CREC Commission (which would certainly include RC Sproul Jr, who can't help but talk to his dad, who can't help but talk to Pastor Shaun, who can't help but blog about it) already knows what the outcome is: "clearing the name of the men involved."

Is anyone really surprised to hear Dr. RC Sproul crowing that his son will soon be exonerated? Naw! We've been able to tell for weeks prior to the convening of the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission that the only real agenda was to review the case and fabricate some bogus allegations for overturning it, as though they had any legitimate authority to do that. Can you say "Kangaroo Court"?

Comments from the original article:

46 Comments:

Thank you so much for presenting the other side. I was going
to post another article on this today because I had heard that there
were further developments but I'm so glad I got busy and didn't do it. I
will link to you instead :-)

I'm glad that there is someone
looking into this because it is confusing and I think if RC Sproul Jr.
has been slandered it should be cleared up publicly.

This doesn't surprise me at all, Shaun. But the level of
hateful speech in the blogosphere has astounded me. I actually have
made a point of not commenting because I couldn't stand the thought of
being on the receiving end (plus, I had no direct information). I think
you're a brave man.

With reference to RC Jr's defrocking (notice
that I don't join you in the use of scare quotes), I find it very
curious that you nowhere refer to, let alone mention, the documentary
evidence in the matter. Doing so could have avoided you making a number
of obvious errors.

For instance, you repeatedly state that RCJr
and his thugs were denied a trial. Yet in fact, RCJr jumped the
denominational ship before the trial could be held. The RPCGA Declartory Judgment removing these men from office, which was unanimously approved by Westminster Presbytery and was in full accord with their BCO,
was based only on the charges that they pled guilty to. RCJr demanded
to be released before the trial on the disputed charges could be held.
The public statement issued by the RPCGA immediately after releasing them from general membership clearly states that the trial on disputed matters was forthcoming:

"While
these men were deposed (defrocked) from office for their continued
pattern of actions in violation of the Book of Church Order, they were
not brought to trial on personal issues from other allegations that were
made. Westminster Presbytery was considering a further investigation of
the allegations of personal sinful behavior against them to determine
if there was sufficient evidence that a trial regarding these
allegations was necessary."

The Declaratory Judgment (p. 10)
quotes a 12/15/05 email from RCJr to the Moderator asking that: 1) that
they be allowed to leave the RPCGA, who would still conduct the trial;
or 2) that the trial be transfered to another denomination (presumably
the CRE). Thus, your bald assertion that RCJr was somehow denied a trial
by the RPCGA is a gross mischaracterization of the facts.

Perhaps
the most substantive charge to which RCJr pled guilty to was exercising
discipline against John Austin and his entire family without any due
process whatsoever. (As an aside, I do find it a bit cheeky that he and
his defenders now whine and falsely complain about the process imposed
by the RPCGA; at least they had full access to due process, unlike the
Austins and several other families at St. Peter.) For this, the
defrocked session confessed and stated their repentence as did RCJr individually.
Are you really encouraging your readers to ignore the admissions to the
facts made by these men, or are you contending that these admissions
were made under torture administered by Ken Talbot, the Westminster
Presbytery moderator? Should we also ignore altogether the witness of
RCJr's personal assistant, Rick Saenz,
who apologized for his role in the unlawful censure of the Austin
family and who confessed his cowardice in the face of RCJr's tyrannical
abuse, or is he also part of the grand blogstorm conspiracy that Mark
Horne decries?

I will, however, commend you for not repeating the
mindless mantra advanced by Laurence Windham, Doug Wilson and Randy
Booth (the CRE Moderator) that these "men" were "deposed without censure".
I do find it sadly amusing that the CRE is now conducting an
"examination". With the CRE's long history of harboring denominational
fugitives (e.g.: Burke Shade, Dennis Tuuri, etc.), this is kind of like
the Nazis conducting a war crimes trial. Since the CRE is not even a
presbyterian denomination, might you be able to explain to me, Shaun,
how the CRE has any authority whatsoever to revisit the lawful judgments
imposed by RPCGA? Do they have any more ecclesiastical authority than
any other blogging Tom, Dick or Harry?

Also, do you really think
that it is appropriate for you to publicly proclaim that you are
"Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name" when you have been so negligent with
the published facts of the case? At best, by your own admission, your
vindication of RCJr is based on nothing more than hearsay from RCJr's
father. Might there be some bias there? And do you really think that
what you have provided in this post is enough to overrule the unanimous
judgment of the brothers and fathers of Westminster Presbytery (RCPGA),
to whom RCJr and his thugs had at least nominally submitted themselves
to? Do you stand by your self-proclaimed "clearing" of RCJr's name?

"Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name." Wow! If that doesn't just say it all right there!

Thanks
Pastor Shaun for posting this. You probably have no idea what a great
service you've just done for the Reformed community. Please don't ever
take this post down. Oh well. It doesn't really matter now. It's already
getting reposted all over the internet.

So Mark, would you consider Shaun's comments as falling under your "blogstorm" categorization? Thanks for clarifying that you consider criticisms of the Sproul sprout to be random and organized. So noted.

Well, Anonymous, unlike yourself, I have the courage of my
convictions and have no problem attaching my name to what I say. I
appreciate Shaun's bold efforts dedicated to "Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's
Name". That is a Herculean task, like trying to clean the Augean
stalls.

It is tragic that a good man like Shaun would devote
himself to clearing Sprout of things that he freely admitted to. Sprout
is apparently willing to let his would-be supporters walk the plank. But
more interesting, I spoke with some of Sprout's victims this evening
about Shaun's post. None of them had heard from Shaun, even though their
identities and contact information are well known (I would be glad to
provide such to him if he has an interest).

But that manifests
the problem at hand: has Shaun improved the level of discourse on this
matter when by his own admission he is presenting only one-sided
hearsay? And getting back to my previous comment, what does it say about
the level of information Shaun provides when it fails to address the
significant body of evidence readily available, or that he has ignored
it altogether? And what does it say that Shaun misrepresents the actions
of the CREC with reference to Sprout? As CRE Moderator Randy Booth has
said publicly, the committee is "not judicial in nature"
and thus is not conducting the trial that Shaun represents that it is.
What does that say about Shaun's grasp of the facts? I would honestly
like to hear his response.

Mr. Poole, I wouldn't be too hard on Pastor Shaun. It seems
to me that his "grasp of the facts" is about as reliable as it gets, at
least in terms of accurately retelling the story as he heard it. I'm
taking him at his word as a story-teller. After all, how could his story
source get any better than RC Sproul? And obviously RC Sproul's story
source is RC Sproul Jr, and RC Jr's story source is Doug Wilson. So what
Pastor Shaun is laying out here for us comes from the highest
story-telling authority of the CREC's Commission, and as far as I'm
concerned it doesn't get any better than that.

The facts are this: If Jr.'s last name were not Sproul, he
would be working construction somewhere to pay the bills. The whole
thing is a sham and his father should be ashamed! I have no doubt daddy
wants to believe him so bad that his judgement is clouded and those who
love Sr. are willing to overlook FACTS.

This is taken right out of Clinton's strategy play book of spin. Go find sympathetic people to clear our names.

It
grieves me that the whole reformed community seems to be totally mute
on this while they have no problem condemning Warren, McLaren and Osteen
all the time.

I just do not get it. They were found guilty and
defrocked and they admitted guilt. Now we are back to they were
"fraudelent charges"? What? Why didn't they stand and fight the first
time?

I use anonymous because we have already seen the character of the men involved. They are viscious.

I am not even going to attempt to reply
to everything that has been said here. I do, however, want to thank
those of you who saw this as what it was, and nothing more.

While
I respect both R.C.'s, I am not their judge (nor am I a blind fan) and
this post was not meant to clear anyone in a judicial sense. I think
I've made that abundantly clear. (My title was a reference to these
elders submitting to examination by others, not to my post proper.) My
post was a modest attempt to share some good in the midst of a whole lot
of malicious slander. Those of you who treated this post that way are
to be praised for your restraint.

I also have no plan to interact
with any of the other material out there on this blog. I have read it
and, given my conversation with R.C., I question certain portions of it.
I will not be posting those personal opinions, however. While it
might be interesting to interact with some of you on them, it would not
serve anyone's good. Not being close to the matter (nor asked to serve
judicially), we would quickly become the blind leading the blind.

As for the CRE being "non-judicial", please forgive my referring to it as a trial. That was incorrect.

As
for the RPCGA not holding a trial because the guys left before they
could, I think it is patently clear that they sought the permission of
the RPCGA to leave. It makes sense, if they were not treated fairly in
the RPCGA, that they would seek judgment elsewhere.

As someone
has rightly said, "the answer is probably in the middle" with guilt on
both sides. I don't think any God-fearing pastor would not admit some
guilt in a situation like this. R.C. said repeatedly that his son had
sought his advice in doing the right things and in righting wrongs. I
am willing to believe that he is telling the truth and, given the
history of the RPCGA, am willing to allow for some error on their end,
as well.

But the truth is not mine to decide. I am content to
leave judgment in the hands of the Lord and I would strongly encourage
you to do the same. If you want to do something, pray for these men,
their accusers, and their judges.

I appreciate you clarifying your positions and
offering your very modest retraction. What I find most disconcerting is
how casually you have slandered the fathers and brothers in the RPCGA;
and when you're called on it, you have nothing more to offer your "the
answer is probably in the middle" equivocation. And yet you boldly
stated in your original post: "I also understand that there are those out there who find no greater pleasure than to slander another man’s character." What utter hypocrisy!

You also say: "I am told that most, if not all of the charges brought against the session of St. Peters were themselves fraudulent."

Those are very strong words, brother, but is this even remotely true? Don't we have available signed statements from RCJr's own hand admitting to the very actions he and the other three were deposed for?
And yet you have by your own confession taken upon yourself the task of
"Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name" of abuses that he has freely
confessed to. With that in mind, I certainly understand your
unwillingness to address the points that I and others have made here,
but forgive me if I don't join with Mark Horne in proclaiming your
"bravery".

Again you say: "In case of point, no trial actually took place before the pronouncement of deposition was issued."

I
ask you again, Shaun, do you still represent that this is true, when in
fact the "men" in question asked to be released before their trial
could be held? Yet you continue: "This is highly irregular..."
Was their deposition from office in full accord with the RPCGA's BCO?
Was it not approved UNANIMOUSLY by Westminster Presbytery? Was the RPCGA
really abusing their authority when the accused admitted to all of the
charges they were defrocked for and were given the opportunity to
challenge the disputed charges in a trial?

I challenge you,
Shaun: would your readers have an accurate understanding of the facts
from your public representations here? Can you present your readers with
even a shred of evidence to back up your outrageous, and thus far
unfounded, public claims?

As someone who attaches the title of
"pastor" to his posts, you must surely understand that you are doubly
accountable for your words. (James. 3:1) But you make serious
accusations against the fathers and brothers of the RPCGA. (I Tim. 5:19)
You've already admitted to making some erroneous claims (e.g. the
CREC's "not judicial in nature" committee). How could you ever look a
man like Don Kistler in the eyes; a man who has been friends with the
Sprouls for decades, and who was offered an opportunity to abstain from
Westminster Presbytery's judgment, but has risked his position and
livelihood with Ligonier and his relationship with the Sprouls by
approving along with the ENTIRE presbytery the deposition of these
defrocked tyrants? Have you no honor for these men in the RPCGA? Have
you loved your neighbors in the RPCGA as yourself? Have you been
diligent to protect the good name of every member of Westminster
Presbytery?

I would kindly but seriously suggest that you
should remove this post and publicly apologize for the slander you have
engaged in at the expense of your brothers in Christ in the RPCGA; not
just for the testimony of their good name, but your own as well.

Friends, I simply ask, with as much neutrality as I am
capable of having, what possible source could RC Sr have for determing
fraudulent charges by the RPCGA other than his son's input? He would
have no access to the denomination's files. As much as I admire and love
the man, his expertise here is minimal or non-existent. His sources
have to be suspect.

You have made some very good points.
Thank you for reminding us of the other people who are being hurt by all
of this. Some how Jr. has become the victim. I hope people will
search to find the truth and not just what they want to hear.

And to the poster who commented about RC Sr. and his sources.....I couldn't agree with you more!

"His sources have to be suspect." Suspect indeed! But if by
"suspect" you're saying that they're not an accurate portrayal, in terms
of the CREC Commission's methods and intentions, I'd have to disagree.

It's
pretty obvious that Dr. Sproul has been repeating what he's heard from
his son. But don't overlook the likelihood that Dr. Sproul has been in
contact with Doug Wilson. That's not just mere speculation on my part.
They're obviously not strangers to each other. Doug Wilson has spoken
for Ligonier and written for Tabletalk. What could get Doug Wilson in
any tighter with the old man than to exonerate his son and reordain him?

Doug Wilson can't have any information other than what Sproul
Jr. has told him. At least, he can't have the information the
denomination had, unless the denomination released it, which they
haven't done.

The ones with the most information on all of this
are RC Sproul Jr and the RPCGA. Their stories vastly differ, but no one
but those two parties know what has happened.

I'll say this. It'll be real hard to get a church to do
discipline if they can expect this when they do. We decry the fact that
there's no discipline, and then turn on the ones who do it. Do the
outsiders really have the right to say, without having access to the
information that only the church has, that it wasn't worthy of
deposition?

Appealling a decision rendered by a court and "turning on the
court" are not the same thing. Discipline is a wonderful thing, but
that does not mean that all courts are infallible. Appeal and complaint
should always be options available to the defendant. (Please do not
ask me why they are not appealling within the RPCGA system. I simply do
not know.)

You bring up an excellent point when you question the
right of outsiders to judge a situation having only limited
information. While folks are certainly welcome to their personal
opinions of a matter, the kind of public judging that has been going on
when only partial information has been available has been appalling.
How quickly many have jumped at their chance to cast the first (or
second or third) stone. These would do well to consider the logs in
their own eyes first. That these men have been deposed is a serious
thing, but it gives no one the right to be belligerent.

The
session of St. Peters, who are by no means outsiders, have determined
that they were not treated fairly and are appealling this matter. This
we know. We also know some of the reasons why. Now that we know these
things, our job is to keep our mouths shut and await the outcome lest
God judge us in the same way we judge.

"Appeal and complaint should always be options available to
the defendant. (Please do not ask me why they are not appealling within
the RPCGA system. I simply do not know.)... The session of St. Peters,
who are by no means outsiders, have determined that they were not
treated fairly and are appealling this matter."

But I thought the CREC Commission was "not judicial in nature." The RPCGA Declaratory Judgment
was obviously judicial, and any appeal of that Judgment would obviously
have to be judicial as well. So has the work of the CREC Commission now
moved from non-judicial to judicial and they just haven't let the
public know about it?

Isn't the whole point of Presbyterianism that if you don't
like the session's decisions, go to Presbytery, and if you don't like
Presbytery's decision, then go to General Assembly/Synod?

It's
beyond perplexing that they left the denomination and appealed to
somebody else (not to mention that the somebody else has stated that
they are not looking at the matter judicially).

It's a very simple matter of "Dad said I couldn't have candy so I'll go ask Mom for some".

And
the reason I think why people are jumping on a case like this (throwing
stones as you say) is because Reformed people act pretty proud about
having it all figured out with reasons for everything (and I speak as a
Reformed person). And so when it's shown that they don't have it all
together, and that they don't even live by their own rules, and that
they don't hold themselves to the same standards that they complain
about everybody else not following, well then the dogpile starts for a
little bit of payback.

I mean, RC Sproul has argued that the
Bible makes it clear that homeschooling is the ONLY way to educate your
children. So he calls me a sinner because I don't do this, and yet I'm
supposed to keep my mouth shut when his own Presbytery makes a public
ruling, and he wants to fight it without going through the due process
of the denomination that he chose to join. So I think that's a bit of
why there's so much stone throwing. Sproul has thrown his fair share of
stones at people who haven't done anything other than have a different
viewpoint about something that the Bible certainly does not address
explicitly.

Pastor Shaun, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. You
said that you didn't think what RC Sproul Jr had done was worthy of
being deposed. Would you ordain a man who had done these things if he
came to your denomination for ordination? If the criteria for a pastor
is that he be above reproach, aren't any of these things worthy of
deposition?

I'm simply reporting the other side of the
story. I'm not making any judgments (at least, I'm trying not
to--forgive me if I have).

If a man with this history came into
my denomination, I *would* be in a place to make judgment (along with my
fellow ministers) and I would expect that we would examine all sides,
as well as honor true repentance demonstrated by its fruit. That is
what we have done with men in the past.

As it is, I don't know everything about this situation and so can't give you a "yes, I'd let him in" kind of answer.

Now that the CREC's Saint Peter Report
is out could you please share your thoughts on it with us? I'm having a
hard time seeing how it clears R.C. Jr's name, but with your inside
sources maybe you've got a different take on things.

I am saddened by the hateful vitriol in the Christian
community. I know people who have left to Orthodoxy and Rome because
Reformed people are so hateful sometimes. Once upon a time people used
to have a life... Good for you in posting this. R.C. is a good man,
saved by grace. Thanks for the post. - Jamey Bennett,
www.wittenberghall.com

BTW - This is one of the reasons I'm a Reformed Anglican
now. Anglicans have their problems, but the continuing Anglicans I'm
around are very kind people. I think we forget that the evil people are
not the RC Jr's of the world. My bishop left ECUSA because the fights
were making him bitter. And its a good thing, because he is a tender
(yet masculine) man.

"I think we forget that the evil people are not the RC Jr's
of the world." How very naive. The most potentially evil and dangerous
men in the world are those who masquerade as shepherds: "Take heed
therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them." Acts 20:28-30

The RPCGA acted prudently
by deposing four of their Elders because they were deemed "not
qualified" for the office. They did so to protect the sheep, and they
should be commended for that. There is now no more clear evidence that
R.C. Sproul Jr. is a wolf in sheep's clothing but that he is in open
defiance of the denomination that he swore to submit to their
discipline, and now that they deposed him from office he continues
masquerading as a pastor.

How very "hateful" of me as a Reformed minister to say so. I guess my vitriolic comments will cause some to flee to Rome.

CREC Commission dude Dennis Tuuri is now blaming a former Saint Peter treasurer for RC Jr's tax identification number theft. Thankfully it now looks like Tuuri's just retracted his story
(or is that backpeddling?). If these guys ever had any credibility at
all I think it's now pretty well shot to H-E double hockey sticks.

This is typical of what I have come to expect. Christians
pick their heroes and defend them when they experience problems
reguardless of facts. Were I in RC Sprouls situation I would give my
son the benifit of the doubt, but that doesnt mean my son couldnt be
misleading me. I love RC Sproul Sr. for what he and his ministry have
done in my life, however he is yet but a man, prone to all the fobiles
and follies to which we are all subject. Too many blindly follow a
beloved teacher and began to think them above reproach, yet they are as
fallen as I. My point here is not to put my stamp of right or wrong on
the whole affair. Simple to state that on both sides there is
unchristian blind faith in one man or group, or another. Do not forget
who we all are, and that includes the exalted folks on both sides of
this. So argue the merits not your emotional attachment to one
teacher/leader or another.

Hmmmm. As I read the "All clear on the Southern Front" Sr.
defends Jr., Here's what I take away from it. 1.) It was a set of
extreme circumstances that happen to coincide all at the same time, to
the same person. 2.) "I did not have sex with that woman."

It
just doesn't happen the way Sr. was talking about. The identity theft -
"Ooops, sorry we missed that." Well okay. The attack on the families
by Jr. & Co. "Hey, they were under church discipline, not us, and we
wanted to make sure they didn't get away with it." Then, a "Ooops.
Sorry. (again) it was our fault and I/we were at fault." At fault for
what? You only apologize for a transgression. Ergo, a transgression was
made (and documented.) Then, the daughter church thing. "That was a
special circumstances thing." What? A daughter church set up OUTSIDE
the bounds of the Presbytery? Why and for what purpose? And the child
communion thing. What is the controversy here? It either happened or
it didn't. Should be easy to determine. But, like the Whitewater case
and Monica Lewinski scandal, to site an extreme comparison, all these
"things" just sort of happened, all at the same time, all to the same
guy. And now, a different group is to adjudicate the issue (again)
because the results of the defrocking were not enjoyed.
I like R.C.
I even send him dinero every month. But this is an embarrassment that
should have been dealt with much sooner. Take your lumps and trust
Believers to be merciful. The idea of "kicking against the pricks" is
so useless and a poor use of resources. Jr. did it. "Whack! Now go to
your room." Let's move on, but no. Sr. is taking the role of the
intrusive parent denying that their kid had anything to do with the bad
behavior at school.
Sr. - discipline Jr. as father to son. He's
out of line for a lot of reasons. It would be the best thing to do for
everyone, especially Jr.

"I like R.C. I even send him dinero every month." Me too. Or
least our family used to be Ligonier supporters. We had to cut them off.
Things have just gotten too ugly at Ligonier. We can't support
ministries that just use our donations to pay attorneys and private
investigators with, which is what they did when they sued a Christian blogger
and then lied about it too. This is very discouraging to us to see this
kind of corruption going on by such a respected Reformed ministry.

Hi. I am undecided on the issue of RC Jr. but I have to say
that I am dissapointed that you are pretending to be the good guy when
you clearly spoke against the RPCGA. You are no better then those who
"slander" RC Jr. but worse because you simplisticly think that you have
been only positive. This is annoying and it annoys me that people are
eating this up. Ultimately if the "slanderers" are right then they are
not slandering becuase they are writing on a public forum where anyone,
including RC Jr., could read it and respond. You also didn't deal with
the question of why R.C. Junior had to go to a questionable
"denomination" like Doug Wilson's to get cleared. If he is so blameless,
why not the PCA or the OPC? I am not trying to be rude but I want
reality not pretended effeminate "niceness." I say this with full
respect for you, it is just that your comments need a rebuke. Please be
more honest next time. God bless.

I have been a long time supporter of RC Sproul and Ligonier
Ministries (I have been to six different Ligonier Conferences)and have
been reading his books since 1990, and I am wondering what in the world
is going on. I do not know which side is right or wrong, but this
problem with RC Jr along with the enormous problems taking place with
Doug Wilson is really disillusioning me and making me feel that the
Reformed Faith in America is becoming a lot like the scandal ladden PTL
and TBN networks.

I have one thing to say to RC Jr, and Doug Wilson, Physicans Reform Thyselves!

At first whiff of the "judgment" I can say something smells
*mighty* fishy, not the least of which was the obvious haste with which
the documents were created, as manifested in very poor grammar and
typos.

I posted this comment over at Shaun's place, but who can guarantee if it will remain there. Here's what I wrote:

Shaun,

With reference to RC Jr's defrocking (notice that I don't join you in the use of scare quotes), I find it very curious that you nowhere refer to, let alone mention, the documentary evidence in the matter. Doing so could have avoided you making a number of obvious errors.

For instance, you repeatedly state that RCJr and his thugs were denied a trial. Yet in fact, RCJr jumped the denominational ship before the trial could be held. The RPCGA Declartory Judgment removing these men from office, which was unanimously approved by Westminster Presbytery and was in full accord with their BCO, was based only on the charges that they pled guilty to. RCJr demanded to be released before the trial on the disputed charges could be held. The public statement issued by the RPCGA immediately after releasing them from general membership clearly states that the trial on disputed matters was forthcoming:

"While these men were deposed (defrocked) from office for their continued pattern of actions in violation of the Book of Church Order, they were not brought to trial on personal issues from other allegations that were made. Westminster Presbytery was considering a further investigation of the allegations of personal sinful behavior against them to determine if there was sufficient evidence that a trial regarding these allegations was necessary."

The Declaratory Judgment (p. 10) quotes a 12/15/05 email from RCJr to the Moderator asking that: 1) that they be allowed to leave the RPCGA, who would still conduct the trial; or 2) that the trial be transfered to another denomination (presumably the CRE). Thus, your bald assertion that RCJr was somehow denied a trial by the RPCGA is a gross mischaracterization of the facts.

Perhaps the most substantive charge to which RCJr pled guilty to was exercising discipline against John Austin and his entire family without any due process whatsoever. (As an aside, I do find it a bit cheeky that he and his defenders now whine and falsely complain about the process imposed by the RPCGA; at least they had full access to due process, unlike the Austins and several other families at St. Peter.) For this, the defrocked session confessed and stated their repentence as did RCJr individually. Are you really encouraging your readers to ignore the admissions to the facts made by these men, or are you contending that these admissions were made under torture administered by Ken Talbot, the Westminster Presbytery moderator? Should we also ignore altogether the witness of RCJr's personal assistant, Rick Saenz, who apologized for his role in the unlawful censure of the Austin family and who confessed his cowardice in the face of RCJr's tyrannical abuse, or is he also part of the grand blogstorm conspiracy that Mark Horne decries?

I will, however, commend you for not repeating the mindless mantra advanced by Laurence Windham, Doug Wilson and Randy Booth (the CRE Moderator) that these "men" were "deposed without censure". I do find it sadly amusing that the CRE is now conducting an "examination". With the CRE's long history of harboring denominational fugitives (e.g.: Burke Shade, Dennis Tuuri, etc.), this is kind of like the Nazis conducting a war crimes trial. Since the CRE is not even a presbyterian denomination, might you be able to explain to me, Shaun, how the CRE has any authority whatsoever to revisit the lawful judgments imposed by RPCGA? Do they have any more ecclesiastical authority than any other blogging Tom, Dick or Harry?

Also, do you really think that it is appropriate for you to publicly proclaim that you are "Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name" when you have been so negligent with the published facts of the case? At best, by your own admission, your vindication of RCJr is based on nothing more than hearsay from RCJr's father. Might there be some bias there? And do you really think that what you have provided in this post is enough to overrule the unanimous judgment of the brothers and fathers of Westminster Presbytery (RCPGA), to whom RCJr and his thugs had at least nominally submitted themselves to? Do you stand by your self-proclaimed "clearing" of RCJr's name?

It is because of this very kind of behavior that we are no longer practicing presbyterians! From our own experience, we have seen case after case where a "good old boy's club" got their buddies out of trouble. We have yet to see justice prevail when the system works in this manner. Where is the balance of powers? Anyone who believes in the total depravity of man, which I do, knows that absolute power in the hands of people corrupts absolutely.

My prediction....R.C. and the gang will get off, they will pick right up where they left off and the lording it over the congregation will be worse than ever. They will continue to be drunk with power (not to mention spirits) and more and more families will suffer through what the Austins and others have had to endure.

The other thing that just drives me crazy which is evidenced in this Pastor Shaun newspeak is that these guys will twist and turn anything and everything into meaning something so bizarre that it really means nothing. They go off on these tangents of church polity that are so far removed from what the Bible actually teaches that any normal Christian is left shaking his head and asking "what in the world did he just say?" The analogy to Bill Clinton is absolutely the right one. I once had a judiciary commission, in a situation where we had charged our church elders of lording it over the congregation (we still have reams of testimony from a good number of families) ask we respected our elders. The answer I gave was this: I would have to say that if is similar to the way I felt about President Clinton. I have utmost respect for the office of elder (president) but absolutely no personal respect for these men (Clinton.) Some of the committee gasped at that, some understood.

I appreciate you clarifying your positions and offering your very modest retraction. What I find most disconcerting is how casually you have slandered the fathers and brothers in the RPCGA; and when you're called on it, you have nothing more to offer your "the answer is probably in the middle" equivocation. And yet you boldly stated in your original post: "I also understand that there are those out there who find no greater pleasure than to slander another man’s character." What utter hypocrisy!

You also say: "I am told that most, if not all of the charges brought against the session of St. Peters were themselves fraudulent."

Those are very strong words, brother, but is this even remotely true? Don't we have available signed statements from RCJr's own hand admitting to the very actions he and the other three were deposed for? And yet you have by your own confession taken upon yourself the task of "Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name" of abuses that he has freely confessed to. With that in mind, I certainly understand your unwillingness to address the points that I and others have made here, but forgive me if I don't join with Mark Horne in proclaiming your "bravery".

Again you say: "In case of point, no trial actually took place before the pronouncement of deposition was issued."

I ask you again, Shaun, do you still represent that this is true, when in fact the "men" in question asked to be released before their trial could be held? Yet you continue: "This is highly irregular..." Was their deposition from office in full accord with the RPCGA's BCO? Was it not approved UNANIMOUSLY by Westminster Presbytery? Was the RPCGA really abusing their authority when the accused admitted to all of the charges they were defrocked for and were given the opportunity to challenge the disputed charges in a trial?

I challenge you, Shaun: would your readers have an accurate understanding of the facts from your public representations here? Can you present your readers with even a shred of evidence to back up your outrageous, and thus far unfounded, public claims?

As someone who attaches the title of "pastor" to his posts, you must surely understand that you are doubly accountable for your words. (James. 3:1) But you make serious accusations against the fathers and brothers of the RPCGA. (I Tim. 5:19) You've already admitted to making some erroneous claims (e.g. the CREC's "not judicial in nature" committee). How could you ever look a man like Don Kistler in the eyes; a man who has been friends with the Sprouls for decades, and who was offered an opportunity to abstain from Westminster Presbytery's judgment, but has risked his position and livelihood with Ligonier and his relationship with the Sprouls by approving along with the ENTIRE presbytery the deposition of these defrocked tyrants? Have you no honor for these men in the RPCGA? Have you loved your neighbors in the RPCGA as yourself? Have you been diligent to protect the good name of every member of Westminster Presbytery?

I would kindly but seriously suggest that you should remove this post and publicly apologize for the slander you have engaged in at the expense of your brothers in Christ in the RPCGA; not just for the testimony of their good name, but your own as well.Saturday, April 08, 2006 2:13:21 AM

Dr. Sproul should be ashamed of himself for such blatant spin. Let me speak with knowledge on one count against RC the Younger, that of establishing a daughter church out of bounds of the RPCGA. I was in attendance when Laurence Windham came to Michigan, and by the authority vested in him as an elder of St. Peter, "installed" Mark Dewey as pastor of Christ the King Church. Mark Dewey and I had several conversations where he referred to our church as a daughter church of St. Peter, and he recognized RC the Younger and Laurence as his authority, even though we were NOT in the RPCGA (either presbytery). Christ the King Church had NO denominational affiliation at its creation and yet was still recognized by elders of St. Peter and Mark Dewey as a daughter church of St. Peter. This was a clear violation of the BCO of the RPCGA, and for Dr. Sproul to try to spin this as a mixup in presbyterian jurisdiction is extremely troubling. This is nothing more than a falsehood being propagated in a feeble attempt to protect his "Precious".